Grenfell Tower repercusions

[Grandad]

Nobody can deny that the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy, perhaps waiting to happen, in which the death toll may still reach nearer to 100 people from the 79 already declared. Were it not for the faulty fridge freezer in one of the flats that started the fire, the residents would still be living happily in their apartments as they have for many years. Sadly but to some extent, fortunately, that fridge freezer has exposed serious deficiencies in building regulations and fire safety certifications.

BUT the event has opened an enormous can of worms regarding the safety of tower block cladding. There are now extensive checks underway throughout the country to determine which buildings have the potentially hazardous cladding.

Grenfell Tower was the first major tragedy of its kind and there are probably hundreds of buildings clad in this or similar materials. I cannot see that a sensible risk assessment was done last evening before around 650 families were evacuated from their flats in the borough of Camden. Was this really necessary or was it a knee jerk reaction by the fire brigade and Camden Council.
It is true that, now identified, this cladding does present a serious risk of spread of fire if there is fire on the outside of the building.

All buildings will have to have the dangerous cladding removed but surely this can be done in a planned manner without the need for the current panic and disruption. It seems most likely that other tower blocks up and down the country will be evacuated in the coming days.

I don't think I am being naive but I do think the fire risks are being overplayed when an immediate systematic correction plan could be put in place without all the unnecessary (in my opinion) panic and disruption.

What are your opinions?

[Horus]

I agree entirely Grandad, it is more a case of everyone covering their own backside. As you say these buildings were quite adequate prior to the fire which does seem to be a bit of a mystery or at least unusual in some way, but this seems more like overkill (no pun intended). I can understand that many residents may feel a little unsafe, but surely some middle ground could have been taken. I believe that the council did ask if stationing a fire engine at each block until repairs were carried out would be sufficient precaution and they would pay the costs involved, but this was rejected by the fire services. I sometimes think that services like the fire brigade can become a bit politicised as a result of cuts and manning levels and they use these incidents to their own advantage, not that having a hundred spare appliances would have prevented it from happening in the first place.

[Ruby Slippers]

For once I disagree with both of you! I don't live in a block of flats and I wouldn't want to, but trying to put myself in the shoes of those that do - and mostly have no choice - I would be terrified! Particularly if it was known that the outside was a fire risk. This time it was a fridge/freezer that caused the problem but it could have been a cigarette end, a faulty heater, a gas cooker or even an electric one - anything! Probably half the furniture that they are using could be donated or given, possibly without a safety certificate, which means that they are twice as vulnerable. In the main, these are people without the means to go out and replace serviceable goods with new, because of fire risk, thus increasing the vulnerability in a disaster. No, I think the councils are doing the right thing.

[Mad Dilys]

I do think that the media circus has caused panic where there should be serious concern. I saw a chap being interviewed yesterday who refused to be evacuated pretty much saying what Grandad said above. Yes, get on the job of removing the panels, yes be aware of the extra risks but don't force disruption on the community.

[Mad Dilys]

My father was a policeman who died 18 months before completing his 30 years of service which would have given him reasonable pension. The widows pension wasn't enough to live on and my mother received 10 shillings a week from the government for me which didn't go far even in 1958. After 6 months we were allocated a small council house for which we were very grateful. I shared a room with my Mum, my older sister having the other bedroom.

Most people at that time rented their homes, and at least in the area where I lived, if people wanted something they saved up for it or mended and made do. Basically they lived within their means.

Some how, the politicians decided that everyone should be able to be a home owner and drummed up the idea with the aid of the media that this was A Good Thing. Hence the crazy idea that council houses should be sold to tenants, without that money being re-invested in new housing........... you couldn't make it up.

Of course there was an increased demand for a diminishing available housing stock and the inevitable and obscene rise in the price of houses started and with it cost of living in general. The answer laid in making loans available. Yeh, sure that was a good idea, now people didn't have savings for a rainy day, no matter how meagre, they had debt.

Now, all young people want A Home of Their Own and struggle to pay for mortgages that they really can't afford. Debt is a serious issue now.

I am very concerned that a lot of council homes including high rise flats are sublet, usually without the council's knowledge or it seems concern. In London, avaricious landlords take advantage of needy people who want to work and cannot afford the ridiculously high cost of proper accommodation, by cramming them into sheds and garages because they can.

I know an Egyptian property owner who some years ago, was living alone, separately from his lawyer wife in a house owned by her, outside central London who somehow managed to be allocated a council flat in central London. He never used it but sublet it to Nigerian students for a few years. As soon as he was eligible, he bought the flat and added it to his portfolio - it's now worth over £1,000,000. And that's just one.

Council houses in central London are often Victorian terraces. Now that some have been sold you find privately owned properties worth over a million pounds cheek by jowel with council tenants which in itself does not make for good community relationships.

What's the answer? Accept it for what it is and try to make it better as there is no quick fix, though an insistence on Due Diligence for public servants might be a good start.

End of rant

[Horus]

I agree entirely with all of what you have just written MD, a very succinct analysis of the current situation.

[Mad Dilys]

Really Horus? I thought I was on my own on this issue, thank you but it was just a rant I had to get off my chest.

By the way, a lot of council workers of all kinds are between a rock and a hard place. They try hard and get baulked by upper management or are successful and then find that they have made themselves redundant.

My daughter worked for both Lambeth and Camden councils for years and after being made redundant as a safety manager for Camden she enrolled at Med. School to study Neural Mechanics. I just wonder how the brain of senior management works.

[Horus]

I could not fault your arguments MD, council houses were sold off to bribe Tory voters, a bit like Corbyn today with his free tuition for students to buy Labour votes, there is too much politicking with the national institutions and mending things that were not broken. I was raised in a terraced house, then a council house which was a big step up from what we had, my parents could afford the rent and all was well with the world. When I was first married we bought our own home, it was not as easy as some people try to make out even in those days and we still had to scrimp and save and do without to be able to afford to do that. I think the biggest problem today is the expectations of the younger generation, I did and still do all of my own repairs and redecorating jobs, not because I wanted to, but because you had to. We also made do with what we had furniture and gadget wise, yes there were less of them, but they still cost a fair bit of money when compared to your earnings at the time. We were never in debt because we adopted a policy of ‘if we could afford it, then we could have it’ so we saved up for our so called luxuries. We had very few holidays and none of them were abroad, a week in a cheap caravan if you were lucky.

Even though I now own my own home and it is a far cry from those basic days of yesteryear I still believe in affordable Social Housing, but the problem today is that we are trying to house just too many people because of past immigration policies which have put undue strain on a depleted housing stock. I would hate to live in a tower block, it would be my worst nightmare, but they were a post war necessity to try and house people as were the ‘prefabs’ that sprung up everywhere. I am not against immigrants, but until we get our building programmes sorted out and house the people we have already in decent accommodation, then we cannot keep adding more people into the equation, we need to call a halt, catch up on the housing supply and then control it all properly.
You rightly point out the landlord situation with people buying up housing stock or sub-letting, the whole system is geared to exploitation especially in the London Boroughs.

[Ruby Slippers]

I don't disagree with any of your replies, but I'm looking at the situation as it is now. Not what used to be, not what we would like it to be, but what the situation actually is at this moment. Hence my reply. Unfortunately we don't live in Utopia.

[LovelyLadyLux]

The Grenfell Tower was a real tragedy. Am not getting the blow by blow of the Media hype but beating it to a frenzy probably isn't helping with the panic feelings however moving families and kids is extremely disruptive too and nothing I would personally advocate. Everybody sits in place and lets get on with the replacement work NOW.

Not too sure what is normative there but here in most big apartment complexes it is Building Management that must provide stove/fridge/dishwasher (if there is one) and lately over the stove microwaves. Not saying that any of these appliances couldn't short out and become a fire hazard but with building management providing them they typically are of better quality than what a tenant might find off the street.

Small appliances are up to the tenant AND I've been in home where the small appliances are a nightmare - i.e. coffee makes that have no auto OFF switch, same with kettles that can boil dry, electric frying pans that are left on and the ever present pot of oil on the stove that is cranked up to high to deep fry food. ALL of these are way more apt to start a fire in a flat that could easily spread and I'm not even going to mention the number of households that burn incense, candles and leave Christmas and holiday lights on 24/7. This also says nothing about all those who want to BBQ on their patios next to the building..........

The question becomes in high density housing HOW do you prevent this? AND try and tell somebody NOT to burn a candle in an apartment complex and you'll hear them scream how this violates their Human Rights.

I do believe, as in the cladding, if something is discovered that is causative for a rapid fire spread it has to be dealt with but there is also (and I'll call it) a mentality of those living in high density housing whereby as they live their own daily lives they're really not thinking of the bigger picture. They're not homeowners so there isn't an awareness of how their actions are impacting the building(s) they live in.

Am not sure I'm quite describing accurately what I'm trying to say but they're not thinking that if they pick up a FREE kettle it might not turn off. They're not thinking that if they burn candles everywhere there could be a fire AND that this impacts an entire block of people. Am not trying to malign those who are disadvantaged or poor BUT I've seen how they live 'in action' so to speak.

And - how do the landlords or Councils deal with this?

[Horus]

They can't LLL and we now have over 60 high rise blocks that we are now being told are unsafe. Now that may be the case and in view of the up to date facts the issues should be dealt with, but I still say it is an over reaction, bad as the fire was, I just cannot see how emptying 60 buildings and trying to rehouse the tennants in other occomodation within days, is being sensible or even possible.

[LovelyLadyLux]

I quite agree that moving that many people is - well - (ahem) "stupid."

I'm not trying to imply at all that anybody should be living in unsafe conditions - BUT - how long have those buildings stood without incident? And how likely is it that another Grenfall will happen BEFORE remediation measures are undertaken? And how many other "accidents waiting to happen" are there in the offing due to human neglect or electronic malfunction or failure?

In todays PC world everybody must appear to be ULTRA "concerned" about everything for everybody all the time (even when there is no realistic answer). With our abilities with mass and immediate communication nobody can chance to appear ever NOT concerned and willing to take immediate action (even if the action is without cause)

Guess I'm getting old and just tired of how the world is today but it definitely seems "WE" are not on a good path. Seems "WE" are on a slippery slope of progressive liberalism with a strong socialist flavor that is leaving a relatively bitter taste in the mouth that can't be spit out or commented on.